Obama and the “Morning After Pill.”

“Exquisite little creature!” said the Director, looking after her. Then, turning to his students, “What I’m going to tell you now,” he said, “may sound incredible. But then, when you’re not accustomed to history, most facts about the past do sound incredible.”

He let out the amazing truth. For a very long period before the time of Our Ford, and even for some generations afterwards, erotic play between children had been regarded as abnormal (there was a roar of laughter); and not only abnormal, actually immoral (no!): and had therefore been rigorously suppressed.

A look of astonished incredulity appeared on the faces of his listeners. Poor little kids not allowed to amuse themselves? They could not believe it.

“Even adolescents,” the D.H.C. was saying, “even adolescents like yourselves …”

“Not possible!”

“Barring a little surreptitious auto-erotism and homosexuality–absolutely nothing.”

“Nothing?”

“In most cases, till they were over twenty years old.”

“Twenty years old?” echoed the students in a chorus of loud disbelief.

“Twenty,” the Director repeated. “I told you that you’d find it incredible.”

Aldous Huxley
Brave New World
Chapter 3

With Obama’s decision to allow the “morning after pill” to be available over the counter for all ages without question or Identification we find ourselves pushed one step closer to Huxley’s “Brave New World,” where sex is a indiscriminate past-time and casual recreation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/11/plan-b-morning-after-pill?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20main-3%20Main%20trailblock:Network%20front%20-%20main%20trailblock:Position1

Random thoughts on the Obama administration allowing children to access the “morning after” pill.

1.) The State pushes indiscriminate sex because such sex destroys the ability of young people to properly bond and form familial loyalties. It is in the interest of the Totalitarian State to destroy all loyalties that might compete with loyalty to the State. By pushing casual sex the Progressive Marxists ensure that no interpersonal loyalties will be formed that will challenge their ability to rule.

2.) The end effect of encouraging meaningless sex is to destroys the whole idea of attached intimacy and dehumanizes the participants by reducing sex to a physical and animal act. The spiritual component of sex being destroyed, the destruction of man’s spirituality is significantly advanced. Man himself begins to think of himself only in terms of his physical lusts and desires. Men who have lost the sense of their spiritual significance are men who think of themselves as no more than cattle. Cattle are easily herded and controlled by the Elite Farmers.

3.) When sex becomes meaningless, and emotion drained out of the act by virtue of the impersonal nature and randomness of the sex act the sense of moral oughtness is seared so that the State can advance other immoralities that will go un-protested by those whose emotional life is barren. It does not take much to convince those, for whom unattached serial sex is morally inconsequential, that any number of other moral outrages as endorsed by the State are acceptable.

4.) The casualness of sex that is being pushed communicates the idea that everyone belongs to everyone. There is a strong strain of communalism in all this. But of course if everybody belongs to everybody then nobody belongs uniquely to anybody. The sense of belongingness is not accentuated but is diminished in the pursuit of sex as a meaningless function of reductionistic human physicality.

5.) Keep your eyes peeled for an increase of rape in our culture because of these kinds of actions. We are already seeing rape on the rise in our military,

http://truth-out.org/speakout/item/16823-rape-culture-at-the-us-naval-academy

If it really is the case that everybody belongs to everybody then it can hardly be considered a crime or even unusual if some begin to take that idea seriously.

6.) The advocacy of normalizing random, regular, and routine sex has the advantage of keeping the Goyim’s mind preoccupied with where he or she will find their next sex opportunity. Minds that are preoccupied with sex are minds that are not preoccupied with thought that is not approved by the State. Fixating the minds of the citizenry on sex is part of the bread and circuses routine that insure independent thought does not arise.

7.) Of course this is all about the Transvaluation of values. The time is coming when being monogamous or perhaps even heterosexual will be seen as pornographic and obscene. Taboos will be reversed so that a young lady who holds her virtue will be mocked and a man who respects women will be lampooned.

8.) A significant part of what makes for Christian categories of Male and Female gender roles is the idea that men are to respect women and women are to be protected by men. When sex is a random commodity men have no incentive to either respect or protect women. Protect them from what? Respect them for what reason? Indiscriminate sex thus goes a long way towards destroying gender roles thus again ensuring the destruction of Christian culture in favor of the unitary Marxist God State.

9.) All of this is suggestive of the anarcho-tyranny that Samuel Francis warned about years ago. In anarcho-tyranny states the FEDS encourage anarchy for libertine and criminal behavior while punishing the law abiding for non-criminal actions. As such we live under the rule of an anarcho-tyrannical Government that desires to, and in some cases has successfully criminalize(d) the ownership of guns, hemp, raw milk, and eggs, while at the same time encouraging and making provision for Mothers killing their babies by a pill and a glass of water.

Of course if your religion is R2K you can’t speak to this as a minister because these kinds of matters are not within the bailiwick of the ministers calling. Instead, you must tell your people that the Christian faith was never intended to transform or impact culture.

My favorite Memorial day story from my Grandfather who fought in WW II

My Grandfather Jacobs spent much of his life as a dairy farmer in Indiana. He was as rough hewed as one might expect given his less then tender upbringing. The man had a work ethic like no one I’ve ever met or known since. My Uncles (His Sons) tell me that his work ethic was even more intense when they were growing up then when I knew him and when I was around he was still working 16 hour days.

Grandpa Jacobs won a bronze star in Europe for disobeying orders while with the Big Red One. He was ordered to wait for ground support before moving forward. Instead, he cleared an obstacle from the road and continued to push on. I suspect there was more to the story then that but like most war vets he tended towards understatement when it came to these kinds of war stories.

However, the story I want to tell from Grandpa Jacobs was about another episode of his disobeying orders. He did not earn any medals for what I am about to tell. However, he may have slept better at night because he disobeyed these orders.

This story was told to me on Lake Michigan sometime in the late 8o’s or early 90’s. We were all on my Step-Father’s large fishing boat and were fishing. This is a story about the nobility of a man in disobeying orders.

My Grandfather was in WW II fighting in the Battle of the Bulge. As some of you know the Germans were at this point in the war so short on man power they had taken for soldiers those men who had seen too many winters or alternately too few winters. The German ranks were bolstered by the too young and the too old.

My Grandfather’s company captured some of these men (boys) in the midst of battle. He was ordered by somebody in the Chain of command to “take them out back and shoot them.” I can imagine that this was a fairly common order and in the heat of a intense battle such a order, from a certain perspective, is understandable. One can easily imagine that there was not enough man power to assign men the task of watching and keeping prisoners.

As he told the story Grandpa Jacobs told us that he told the officer who gave the command that, “I have boys not much younger than this age at home. I can’t do that.”

And he didn’t.

I don’t know what happen to those boys. He probably didn’t either. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if others were found to obey the order. There is a reason that someone once said, “War is Hell.”

But the fact that he disobeyed that order is the proudest live story I am somehow connected with from WW II.

And it also reminds me that War is such a terrible terrible reality that it should be pursued only as the last possible option and only in the context of Christian Just War Theory.

Marriage Homily

Of course that which makes a marriage uniquely Christian is the pledged allegiance of both the Christian Husband and the Christian Wife to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Here we have two people who have been set apart for salvation from eternity, and who have been declared righteous in Christ in God’s court. They have been united to Christ by the Spirit’s work and now they enter into marriage. Very well then, it is quite obvious that that which will make the marriage Christian is their bowing to the Lordship of their King and Savior in their marriage.

This concern about the Lordship of Jesus Christ begins even before marriage in the courting process and manifests itself first in the careful attention of each that they are marrying someone who is suitable for them.

This is what God said in Genesis

The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

Now, it stands to reason that this woman who was to be suitable for Adam found an Adam that in turn was suitable for her. This is just to say that Adam and Eve were a fit. They were quite literally made for each other.

First of course they were a fit in the sense that they understood that they were God’s creatures and were beholden to Him. In our language today we might say that they shared a common faith. No marriage should be entered into where man and wife do not share a common understanding of their shared Christian faith. Indeed Scripture forbids it for Christians when it forbids unequal yoking.

But the correspondence, — or suitability if you prefer — between our first parents of course only began with Adam and Eve’s common faith — a common faith that found each of them trusting in God at each turn.

But beyond this common faith were other commonalities. They were yoked in other ways. After all this was a woman who was, in Adam’s own words, “Bone of my Bone, and Flesh of my Flesh.” Adam and Eve mirrored one another. I suspect that Adam and Eve corresponded to each other in the way that they looked and in their mannerisms, in their likes and dislikes. They not only shared a faith and a bed but they shared common delights, common palates, common speech patterns, and common characteristics.

Rudyard Kipling caught something of what I am getting at in terms of the need for commonalities in uniquely Christian marriage that is never less than a common faith but is always more than a common faith when he wrote,

The Stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk–
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.

Dr. Clarence Macartney, a well known Reformed Minister from my Grandparent’s generation put this time-tested concept, if also time-worn idea, in a sermon he preached on Marriage and family life. Macartney preached,

“Love imagines that it can overleap the barriers of race and blood and religion, and in the enthusiasm and ecstasy of choice these obstacles appear insignificant. But the facts of experience are against such an idea. Mixed marriages are rarely happy. Observation and experiences demonstrate that the marriage of a Gentile and Jew, a Protestant and a Catholic, an American and a Foreigner has less chance of a happy result than a marriage where the man and woman are of the same race and religion….”

I know that Anthony and Rachel share the kind of commonalities that the Lordship of Christ anticipates for a uniquely Christian marriage. They are not strangers to one another in terms of suitability. They share a common understanding of their common faith. They share a worldview. They come from similar family cultures and backgrounds and they share a people group. They are suitable for each other.

II.) When it comes to a uniquely Christian marriage not only is the Lordship of Christ pursued in the issue of the suitableness of each for one another but it is also pursued in each of them submitting to God’s Law.

Remember we are speaking here of a Christian marriage and in a Christian marriage you have two people who have had wrought within them the desire to look to the interest of the other. You have two people, who, when they say they “love” each other they understand that love is an empty concept unless if is defined by God’s law. Anthony must not love Rachel in ways that are inconsistent w/ God’s revealed word and Rachel must not love Anthony by defining what love is by her own law word. In order for their marriage to be Christian each must love in ways consistent with God’s revealed law-word.

Of course you already know that never was a word more cheapened in our culture than the word “love.” We have sentimentalized it, we have coarsened it, we have invoked it in order to cover the most hateful of actions. And the reason for this is that “love” has no stable meaning because each man loves as is right in his own eyes. This is not so in a Christian marriage that takes the Lordship of Christ into account. A Christian marriage understands that “love” is regulated and finds it’s meaning in God’s law being applied. Jesus Himself draws our attention to the same point when He told his disciples, “If you love me keep my commandments.”

The fact that marriages fail so often can be accounted both by the fact that two people married who did not correspond to one another to begin with and by the fact that both people in the marriage are seeking to regulate the marriage according to their own self-governing law word. In short, marriages fail because one if not both partners are seeking to be God in the relationship. It can get pretty ugly when the Gods go to war.

When both husband and wife submit to a royal law of love that is defined and regulated by God’s Law-Word then the conflict of the wills have a boundary in order to limit them.

So, a uniquely Christian marriage finds God’s revealed law-word governing their marriage and their homes. Anthony shows his love to Rachel by serving her much as Christ served the Church in the washing of his disciples’ feet. He serves her by leading, protecting, providing, and by nurturing her in her undoubted catholic Christian faith. Rachel shows her love to Anthony by submitting to him, by being a complement to him, and as Christ always delighted to do the will of His Father so Rachel will delight in doing the will of her husband who will lay down his life for her.

III.) The Lordship of Jesus Christ is expressed in uniquely Christian marriages by the teleology or goal of the Marriage.

Theologians will tell you that part of what constitutes man as the “image of God” is the fact that he was charged with having dominion over God’s creation. He was to be a ruling steward over creation for God as King.

When God gave Eve to Adam that giving was in the context of Adam’s dominion work. The giving of Eve to Adam was for the purpose of aiding and assisting Adam in his work of dominion.

In the Christian understanding nothing has happened since Adam was created to exercise dominion and since Eve was created from Adam to be a help-meet in that dominion taking that has rescinded the idea that the ultimate goal of marriage is a Husband and Wife co-operating, under God’s regency and Law-Word, in exercising godly dominion. The Husband and Wife, together as man and wife, are to reconstruct all they put their hands too in a Christ honoring direction. Even the having and rearing of children is to be unto the end of being able to more readily exercise dominion to the glory of God.

And clearly we live in times that desperately need humble Christian dominion taking. Clearly we live in times where we should pray that God will raise up a host of Christian marriages that understand the charge to begin dominion taking first by reconstructing marriage and family again along Biblical lines.

You see, the ordaining of marriages is not about our creature comforts. When God joins suitable Redeemed men and women together, as under His law word, they are commissioned to the end of going on quest to reconstruct all of the un-real reality around us so as to be consonant to God’s Kingdom reality. And if the sound of dominion lands to roughly upon your ears look at what I am speaking of as Christian marriages contributing to the healing of a broken world with the medicine of God’s Word.

If we were to put this in terms of a epic adventure novel, Christian Marriage is an adventure where the husband is a Knight of the Lord Christ’s round table protecting his wife and family by taking dominion over the serpent dragon who would seek to destroy Christ’s authority and Kingdom at every turn. The wife is no helpless damsel in distress but she is helping the husband to better able to demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God and the advance of His Kingdom.

And so a uniquely Christian marriage looks to the Lordship of Christ in these three areas

I.) Suitability
II.) Governance by God’s Law
III.) Dominion”

Trustee Family

“The three main family types are the trustee family, the domestic family, and the atomistic family. The trustee family has the most power and scope. It is called the trustee family because its living members see themselves as trustees of the family blood, rights, property, name, and position for their lifetime. They have an inheritance from the past to be preserved and developed for the future. The trustee family is the basic social power; in some forms, but not in the Bible, the trustee family can execute its members or sell them into slavery, things banned by biblical law to the trustee family but common in other cultures. The head of the family is not the head in any personal sense but as family head and as a trustee of powers [and responsbilities].

The domestic family is the most common type. It stands between the trustee family and the atomistic family. The domestic family tries to get the best of both worlds — freedom for the individual and stability for the family. The family loyalties are still maintained, but the state has become the major institution in society, and men depend more on the state than the family. The husband in the domestic family has more arbitrary power with both the family property and its members and acts less as a trustee of all powers.

In the atomistic family, the individual seeks freedom from the family bonds. Father, mother, and children see the family as restraints; the basic unit for them is not the family but the individual. For the old sacredness of the trustee family, the atomistic family substitutes the sacredness of the individual. Neither the parents nor the children like the idea of sacrificing for the welfare and independence of the family; it is their purely individual welfare and independence which concerns them. The trustee family exists only in a very limited civil state: it keeps essential government in its own hands. The atomistic family sees instead the rise of the Leviathan state, of Statist power and totalitarianism. There is an essential relationship between family structure and cultural and political conditions.”

R. J. Rushdoony

So how does one go about building this type of family?

1.) Communicate to children by word and deed the centrality of family

2.) This means being extraordinarily careful about the influences upon the lives of our children and the friends they have. Government schools are normally never an option.

3.) Trying (though the State will seek to thwart at every turn) to build up a financial legacy for the generations that come behind.

4.) Build up other legacies to be left to the Children. Passing on a well thought out world-view to our children is the richest legacy of all.

5.) Encourage the children to marry someone who likewise has a vision to carry on the Trustee family.

6.) Since a good Church is important to the end of a trustee family try to find a Church that preaches the Trustee family us as a Biblical idea.

7.) Try and build a successful business that can become a family business that can be passed on. This will work to tie the family together economically.

8.)Buy plots of land that the family can eventually build on. This, combined with #7 will keep the family geographically close.

9.) Be missions minded. If, by God’s grace, some of the above comes together, don’t be shy showing God’s richness off so that people might desire to have what you have.

10.) Pray. Pray, Pray. Pray for wisdom. Pray for opportunity. Pray for courage. Pray for ability. Pray for your children and the generations.

Chesterton & McAtee On Loving Humanity

I should very much like to know where in the whole of the New Testament the author finds this violent, unnatural, and immoral proposition. Christ did not have the same kind of regard for one person as for another. We are specifically told that there were certain persons whom He especially loved. It is most improbable that He thought of other nations as He thought of His own. The sight of His national city moved Him to tears, and the highest compliment he paid was, ‘Behold an Israelite indeed.’ The author has simply confused two entirely different things. Christ commanded us to have love for all men, but even if we had equal love for all men, to speak of having the same love for all men is merely bewildering nonsense. If we love a man at all, the impression he produces on us must be vitally different to the impression produced by another man whom we love. To speak of having the same kind of regard for both is about as sensible as asking a man whether he prefers chrysanthemums or billiards. Christ did not love humanity; He never said He loved humanity; He loved men. Neither He nor anyone else can love humanity; it is like loving a gigantic centipede. And the reason Tolstoians can even endure to think of an equally distributed affection is that their love of humanity is a logical love, a love into which they are coerced by their own theories, a love which would be an insult to a tom-cat.

G.K.Chesterton
Varied Types

The love of humanity is the root of all kinds of evil. It was the love of humanity on the part of the committee of Public Safety that brought down the Bastille and set up la madame guillotine in Paris. It was the love of humanity on the part of the Black Republicans and the abolitionists that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans and blacks in order to “rescue” and “free” blacks. It was the love of humanity on the part of Bolsheviks that brought us the Holdomor and the gulag archipelago. The love of humanity has given us tens of millions of dead humans and has brought despotism and tyranny of untold magnitude.

Secondly, Chesterton teaches here the principle of love according to concentric circles. It is natural, Chesterton teaches us, to first love family, and then from there love others according to the 5th commandment proximity in which they stand to us. Jesus did it Himself. He revealed it when He took care of his own Mother when hanging on the Cross. He didn’t take care of all the Mothers of the world. He revealed His priority of love for His own when He referred to the non Israelite syrophoenician woman as a “dog,” in comparison to His people, who He referred to in His response to the woman as “the children.” He revealed His priority of love for His own when He proclaimed He was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. He revealed His priority of love for His own when Jerusalem’s refusal of Him brought Him to tears as He contemplated the judgment that would be visited upon them as a result of their rejection.

It is true that the love of Christ spilled over unto the Gentile world but His love was first prioritized upon His people. This is just as our love should be. The love of Christ in us should spill over to those outside our Kith and Kin who are of the faith, but that love first properly begins with our love of Kith and Kin of the faith.

The love of humanity is a love that is abstract and because it is abstract it seldom touches concrete people. When people love humanity in the abstract they abort concrete babies in order to love the abstracted concept of troubled women they have concocted in their twisted minds. When people love humanity in the abstract they pass legislation to destroy concrete people who they see as standing in the way of their twisted love for abstracted people. Stalin loved the Soviet people and so he murdered millions of Ukrainians who resisted his collectivization. Concrete people are put in Gulags who oppose abstract love.

The love of humanity also leads to a beehive and anthill social order as the love of a abstracted humanity brings with it the insistence that all humanity must be the same. The love of all equally, when translated into social policy, brings the destruction of all distinctions among concrete individuals that make up abstracted humanity. “I love all people equally,” soon becomes, “all people I love equally must be the same.” The love of abstracted humanity is a idea that has terrible consequences.

The love of humanity is going to get us all killed.